Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 14th Jun 17, 5:03 AM
    • 56Posts
    • 29Thanks
    Kshah786
    Got another parking ticket..3rd time unlucky maybe
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 17, 5:03 AM
    Got another parking ticket..3rd time unlucky maybe 14th Jun 17 at 5:03 AM
    hi all. as the title says, I have got another parking ticket. This time was at the Hospital with my wife. There was no parking spaces for me to park at the hospital and I was in a rush to park. however there was a side street behind the hospital where I noticed a few cars were parked. so I though ooh these guys must know a secret parking spot. at this point I must say that there were double red markings on the floor,(very faint but could see them). the area was very secluded, it was no ambulance way etc, just a quiet little area with a few vans parked there. so I proceeded to park there and on my return there was a ticket on my windscreen. sooo, the question is have I a leg to stand on as I was parked on double reds even though it was not in a dangerous/busy area. I have won previously with popla but this time its parked on double reds. what can I do...


    ON THE PLUS SIDE MY WIFE GAVE BIRTH TO A BABY BOY WEIGHING IN AT 7.8lbs. WHOOP WHOOP.... However in this case a PLUS and MINUS still make a MINUS ey. Damn you CPP (this is the name of the PPC btw)
Page 3
    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 24th Aug 17, 10:12 AM
    • 56 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Kshah786
    hi coupon mad. I haven't had time to get pictures as of yet but here is another rough copy:

    Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

    I am the registered keeper of vehicle ****** and am appealing a parking charge from CPP on the following points:

    1
    . The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
    2 . No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself




    1. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

    In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability
    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    ''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''


    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    3. The signs in this Road way are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:


    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgement is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.


    There is no evidence that this roadway is part of the purported enforcement zone, and the operator is put to strict proof to evidence that this place, where the car was parked, is within the site covered and authorised in the landowner contract. The appellant contends that any such contract allows 'ticketing' in the car parks only, and for breach of contract cases only. Even if this roadway is proved to be within the landowner-authorised site, it cannot possibly fall within the scope of an arrangement where parking is offered under contract, nor is it a place where there can be any 'breach of contract'.

    It is perverse, and a legal impossibility, to prohibit parking in the one hand and yet pretend that a valid 'contractual offer' to park is made and agreed, on the other hand. There can be no case or cause of action to support a non-landholding third party operator, alleging some sort of 'breach of contract' in what they will also describe as a no-parking area.

    Consideration flowing between the parties is fundamental to a contractual charge.

    If CPP are alleging that this badly-signed road was somehow an alleged 'no parking zone' then there is no possible consideration flowing between driver and CPP, no contractual offer or agreement is possible within any area with a purported complete prohibition on parking. There could, theoretically, be a case for trespass/damages but the Beavis case decision in the Supreme Court confirmed the fact that it is trite law, that ParkingEye could not have pursued damages and only a landowner can recover such a sum under the tort of trespass:

    ‘’ But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’ [...] ‘’ charging overstayers £85 underpinned a business model which enabled members of the public to park free of charge for two hours. This was fundamental to the contractual relationship created by Mr Beavis’s acceptance of the terms of the notice’’

    97. ''ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.''

    Lord Mance at 190: ''Mr Beavis… was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.''

    In conclusion, POPLA as an unbiased appeals service, needs to understand that the Beavis case (in common with other case law) has varied application and that it can - and should by POPLA, in the interests of balance, never mind how the BPA interpret it - be used in favour of appellants in such specifically different (no contract possible/trespass possible only) circumstances.

    I have quoted the Supreme court in my favour in this case; I am not talking about 'GPEOL' by any stretch of the imagination, so POPLA Assessor, kindly don't wrongly apply POPLA's embarrassing knee-jerk template, widely shown to have been used ridiculously in completely irrelevant cases, that 'Beavis = GPEOL'. Spare me the template wall of text about that, and please understand that I am not talking about that in my appeal - do not summarise my case by stating it (please). The above quotes are nothing to do with that aspect.

    The driver in my case, could have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but as the Supreme Court held, that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space, a value which was zero if the operator contends this was a no parking zone.

    POPLA cannot therefore make a valid, lawful finding that £100 'parking charge' was properly given.
    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 29th Aug 17, 9:54 AM
    • 56 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Kshah786
    Hi can anyone have a look again at my popla appeal. Should i add anything. Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 30th Aug 17, 1:10 AM
    • 50,750 Posts
    • 64,165 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's about all you can include, and #1 is pushing it but worth a try, for example if the PPC forget to include in evidence, a copy of the NTK! Has happened!

    Upload it under 'OTHER' for POPLA. If you win, great, if you lose, don't pay!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 30th Aug 17, 2:47 AM
    • 56 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Kshah786
    quick question. how do I add this to a pdf. ive forgotten how to do it for the popla appeal
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Aug 17, 9:18 AM
    • 14,993 Posts
    • 23,545 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    quick question. how do I add this to a pdf. ive forgotten how to do it for the popla appeal
    Originally posted by Kshah786
    There'll be instructions within your Word program on how to convert the document to a .PDF file. Or search via Google.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Kshah786
    • By Kshah786 2nd Oct 17, 2:38 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    Kshah786
    Decision

    Successful

    Assessor Name

    Louise Dack

    Assessor summary of operator case

    On 11 June 2017, vehicle NX09YDH was issued with a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This PCN was issued due to the motorist parking on a red route.

    Assessor summary of your case

    The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, they do not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue charges on site and that the signage on the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

    Assessor supporting rational for decision

    When entering private land where parking is permitted, you are entering into a contract with the operator by remaining on this land. The terms and conditions of this land should be displayed around this area. It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN; it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that this is the case. The terms and conditions shown on the photographic evidence provided by the operator state ‘’No parking at any time…Please note that it is a condition of entry to the trust property that car parking or waiting is restricted to those persons having business with the trust or its patients…By entering, you contract and consent to: No waiting or parking allowed at any time on the designated ‘Red Route’…Failing to comply with any of these conditions you agree to pay the parking/entry charge of £50.00.’’ A PCN has been issued for the following reasons: the appellant has parked on a red route. The appellant states that the operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge, they do not believe that the operator has the authority from the landowner to issue charges on site and that the signage on the car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof belongs with the operator to demonstrate it has issued the PCN correctly. In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract. As such, I am unable to confirm if the contract meets the requirement of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7. Therefore, in this case, I am unable to confirm that the operator has landowner authority to issue PCN’s on the site in question. As such, I can only conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 3:12 PM
    • 50,750 Posts
    • 64,165 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In this instance, the operator has failed to provide a copy of the contract.
    haha, well done!

    Please can you update 'POPLA Decisions' with a link to this thread, saying which PPC you beat?!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 7:50 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,298Posts Today

8,963Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin